(05-12-2013 05:58 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote: I think I'm teetering between atheist and ignostic. If I were to post my views, would you lovely folks help me find a nice category to fit in?

Us humans love labelling shit and stuffing thingin in boxes and such. We'll even jam square pegs into round holes!

Describe yourself and we'll see if the boot fits.

I personally don't care for lables myself but it could be helpful if I could find a word for my views.

Lets see, my take in god, I don't believe in a literal supernatural god. All the claims of god that I hear are so variant that there is no clear definition that fits. It seems god is a personal manifestation of a persons persona. Its whatever they want it to mean. the gods spoken in all religions seem to be a product of human invention to explain the word and also in some case to describe the ultimate unknown. A metaphor if you will, of transcendent mystery.
In the bible they constantly mention that god is something. Is the light, is the truth this seems very metaphorical to me.

I am skeptical of all god claims, but I can't evaluate a specific one until it has been presented. I'd reject a typical deist god for being irresolvable. I'd reject the god of the Bible for being logically impossible and all evidence being to the contrary.

Well claiming to know "Without a doubt" is almost equivalent to saying that i'm absolutely certain about something.

I don't believe in God but i don't claim with absolute certainty that there isn't a higher power somewhere.

EDIT: "There is no uncertainty, only certainty" so yeah... if you're a Gnostic atheist you're absolutely certain about everything in the universe.

Who said "without a doubt" ? I didn't.

And even if somebody says "without a doubt", it's not equivalent to absolute certainty , it's almost equivalent like you have noticed.
"Almost" can be a huge difference. Like in "I almost got shot in the head today".

This terminology is just a way to more precisely explain how people feel about the existence of god/gods.

Theism/atheism is referencing one's beliefs.
Gnostic/agnostic is referencing one's knowledge ( to be more precise , this terms are referencing one's claims of knowledge about the subject ) .

Of course, you can disagree with someones position, that's not the issue here, is it?

(05-12-2013 06:15 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote: I don't believe in God but i don't claim with absolute certainty that there isn't a higher power somewhere.

That's where we disagree. It is not my job to speculate upon possible gods, but rather reject extant god claims. And that other statement is ridiculous. Being a gnostic atheist is not knowing everything, it is knowing that the structure of contemporary theology is a finger pointing to a moon that isn't there.

(05-12-2013 06:15 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote: I don't believe in God but i don't claim with absolute certainty that there isn't a higher power somewhere.

That's where we disagree. It is not my job to speculate upon possible gods, but rather reject extant god claims. And that other statement is ridiculous. Being a gnostic atheist is not knowing everything, it is knowing that the structure of contemporary theology is a finger pointing to a moon that isn't there.

I don't really like the idea of gnosticism. I think I can clearly articulate the line between believing something and not believing something. I don't think I can clearly articulate the line between knowing something and not knowing it. I would need more context about what is meant by "know" in a given circumstance.

I "know" Santa Claus doesn't exist, and I "know" God doesn't exist in much the same sense.
I cannot prove mathematically that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and I cannot prove mathematically (some) God doesn't exist. I can rule out certain forms of God based on their defined properties and contradictions either between those properties or between those properties and the real world.

I just don't see the point in talking about what I know and don't know. I'd rather talk about what I believe or don't believe and what I can prove or can't prove. "Knowing" just doesn't feel like firm enough concept to state definitive stances on.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.

(06-12-2013 06:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote: That's where we disagree. It is not my job to speculate upon possible gods, but rather reject extant god claims. And that other statement is ridiculous. Being a gnostic atheist is not knowing everything, it is knowing that the structure of contemporary theology is a finger pointing to a moon that isn't there.

Which moon?

Man, you're too damn close to getting a picture of a harry asshole. Back away slowly...